Announcing a formal request for the Auditor General to audit the Australian BOM

A team of skeptical scientists, citizens, and an Australian Senator have lodged a formal request with the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) to have the BOM and CSIRO audited.

The BOM claim their adjustments are “neutral” yet Ken Stewart showed that the trend in the raw figures for our whole continent has been adjusted up by 40%. The stakes are high. Australians could have to pay something in the order of $870 million dollars thanks to the Kyoto protocol, and the first four years of the Emissions Trading Scheme was expected to cost Australian industry (and hence Australian shareholders and consumers) nearly $50 billion dollars.

Given the stakes, the Australian people deserve to know they are getting transparent, high quality data from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM). The small cost of the audit is nothing in comparison with the money at stake for all Australians. We need the full explanations of why individual stations have been adjusted repeatedly and non-randomly, and why adjustments were made decades after the measurements were taken. We need an audit of surface stations. (Are Australian stations as badly manipulated and poorly sited as the US stations? Who knows?)

The NZ equivalent to the Australian BOM is under an official review

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition found adjustments that were even more inexplicable (0.006 degrees was adjusted up to 0.9 degrees). They decided to push legally and the response was a litany of excuses — until finally The National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) was forced to disavow it’s own National Temperature Records, and belatedly pretend that it had never been intended for public consumption. But here’s the thing that bites: NZ signed the Kyoto protocol, arguably based very much on the NZ temperature record, and their nation owes somewhere from half a billion to several billion dollars worth of carbon credits (depending on the price of carbon in 2012). Hence there is quite a direct link from the damage caused by using one unsubstantiated data set based on a single student’s report that no one can find or replicate that will cost the nation a stack of money. NIWA is now potentially open to class actions. (Ironically, the Australian BOM has the job of “ratifying” the reviewed NZ temperature record.)

Thanks to work by Ken Stewart, Chris Gillham, Andrew Barnham, Tony Cox, James Doogue, David Stockwell, as well as Cory Bernardi, Federal Senator for South Australia.

Presenting a Formal Request to Audit BOM and CSIRO Climate Data and Advice

The following is a request and justification for the independent audit of the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) climate record data, particularly the data and algorithms that contribute to the formal assessments of Australian climate change provided by BOM and CSIRO to the Australian government.

BOM Data is vitally important to the nation

The CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) are publicly funded institutions. The Government relies on advice from these organisations. Decisions based on BOM data and CSIRO may increase taxes and will direct the allocation of billions of dollars in the Government and private sectors.

There are currently no independent audits of climate data

Despite their importance, there are no truly independent audits of the quality and accuracy of some of that data and information provided to the Government and to the public from these organisations. Audits are a safeguard to ensure there is no possibility of politically or ideologically motivated manipulation of records and advice.

Unexplained adjustments and errors have been discovered

Preliminary surveys of the BOM temperature record by independent analysts including engineers and scientists have found large, unexplained, non-random changes to original temperature data and in some cases clear errors. Officials inside the BOM have not to date provided adequate justification or a detailed record of the discrepancies identified.

Artificial adjustments exaggerate the warming

A BOM spokesman has claimed that the adjustments make little difference to the overall trend reported for Australia and are simply made to improve data quality. Yet independent checks suggest that the adjustments may account for as much as a third of the reported warming trend in Australia.

Some questions that would be answered by the audit are:

Why have raw temperature records from the middle of the last century been artificially reduced? Are we to believe that 50 years after the measurements were recorded BOM officials realized they were artificially too high?

Why were so many thermometers believed to be overestimating temperatures in the first half of the 1900′s?

Where are the records detailing the justification for altering the historical record for each station?

Does the lowering of temperature records from the middle of last century result in an artificially exaggerated warming rate of the temperature record?

Independent checks also suggest:

The BOM temperature record includes sites with 100 year long “records” which are based on just 12 years of actual data. An undisclosed method was used to construct an extraordinary 85% of the graph. (Appendix I)

The BOM database appears ‘buggy’ with averages for an entire month across a large state suddenly changed upwards three months after the readings came in. The “bug” in this case produced a change comparable in size to the entire reported warming trend over the last hundred years. (Appendix I).

It has been shown that nearly 90% of temperature stations in the US are sited too close to artificial heating sources. There has been no independent auditing or checking of Australian temperature station sitings. It is reasonable to assume that some similar siting problems may exist in Australia. Predominantly, poor sitings lead to an exaggeration of warming trends. If an audit is done and changes are made to the temperature record, it must be done so on a site by site and transparent basis to ensure the changes can be checked and justified.

The US Goddard Institute of Space Studies has produced graphs with copies of the BOM data which are missing values which materially affect the results. BOM apparently does not notice, or is not checking, or does not report errors in order to make sure that international agencies are using accurate Australian records. Scientific conclusions are drawn by Australian, International and IPCC scientists based on the GISS presentation of Australian temperature records.(Appendix I).

­­­­
Given the acknowledged national importance of our climate data the Australian people should not have to rely on volunteer members of the public to identify these errors and omissions. The Hadley Centre of the British Meteorological Office has accepted the need for a checking and revision of the HADCRUT global temperature record that they supply to the IPCC. So too, an independent audit of BOM climate data records is needed now.

Urgent action is needed

These disturbing findings should be referred to the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) as a matter of urgency to carry out a complete audit of the BOM climate records, if necessary by subcontracting some of the detailed aspects of the work to independent, skilled scientists. It is important that the Australian Government and the Australian public have complete confidence in the BOM records and the reports produced by BOM and CSIRO based on those records. That is not currently the case. The following are more specific, detailed case studies of why an independent audit of BOM data records are urgently needed.

a. ….When Ken Stewart wrote questioning data adjustments with Dr David Jones, Head of Climate Monitoring and Prediction, National Climate Centre, Bureau of Meteorology, Dr Jones replied that their adjustments have “a near zero impact on the all Australian temperature”.Yet when Kenlooked at the raw data from Australia’s 100 high quality rural sites, the adjustments increased the trend in the raw data by 40% — from a 0.6°C rise over 100 years, to 0.85°C over 100 years. These are clearly not random, and obviously not “zero impact”. [Source: Appendix I - Joanne Nova]

Ken has written again to BOM, and to MP Tony Burke, asking for explanations for the adjustments, but has not received a reply. We need the answers to the 8 questions Ken Stewart poses in Appendix II.

b.….Chris Gillham (Appendix III) noted that on November 17 2009 the mean temperatures for all WA recording stations were adjusted upward by as much as 0.5 °C for August 2009, making it the “hottest on record”. The incorrect temperatures, according to the BOM were due to a “bug”. This is a very large correction across 2.5 million square kilometres and over all of the data for an entire month.

c.…. Andrew Barnham (Appendix IV) has shown that while the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect is a well recognised phenomenon, the BOM adjustments to “compensate” for this, make almost no difference to the trend, a finding which is contrary to the latest understanding of UHI as shown in Appendix IV.

2. Multiple problems have been uncovered with temperature records around the world. There are many examples given of potentially inaccurate or ‘fudged’ data, including such accusations from the Government or their agencies in Russia, China and India. The matter has been particularly well discussed in this selection of articles. We specifically emphasise the fact that NIWA has backed away from ever having been responsible for providing New Zealand’s official temperature records. Information on the NIWA matter and other temperature data problems around the world are detailed in Appendix V.

All countries’ temperature recording authorities share basically the same IPCC approved methods of adjusting data. As mentioned above, Australia’s records have been found to be questionable based on the analysis detailed in the Appendices and referred to above. However, as BOM is affiliated with overseas agencies which have been found wanting, it is not surprising similar suspicions are held regarding BOM’s data record. Given justifiable doubts are being raised around the world regarding different countries’ temperature records it is important Australians have confidence in the records reported by BOM. This can only be achieved through an independent audit of the data record.

3.There are many examples where other agencies outside of Australia have been using BOM supplied data and it has been discovered the data used by the overseas agencies is wrong. An audit is necessary to determine whether the errors are originating at the Australian end within BOM. See for example in Appendix V, ‘Computer geek uncovers British climate-data errors’ [SMH]

4. It is important that the Australian Government and the Australian people have confidence in the data provided by BOM because the data is being used on an almost daily basis by the Governments, it’s officials, the media and social commentators to drive public opinion and Government policy. For example: ‘Labor seizes on temperature figures as evidence of global warming’ Jan 2010 [Source: The Australian]

5. It is clear the CSIRO are relying on the dubious data published by BOM as evidenced by the publication of ‘ State of the Climate’ CSIRO [PDF Copy] In addition an article about the new head of the CSIRO earlier this year titled ‘Life science’ it was written that “a piece of CSIRO work to which McKeon points is the snapshot of Australia’s weather patterns during the past 50 years, released in March by the organisation and the Bureau of Meteorology. It said Australia’s average temperature had risen 0.7 degrees since 1960, that the average daily maximum temperatures had risen every 10 years for the past 50 and that the past decade was also the hottest on record.” [Source: The Age] Without an independent audit, there can be no confidence that CSIRO’s conclusions, and advice to the Government, are accurate.

Government policy in relation to Climate Change will have a significant impact on the lives of every Australian from the way we live to our financial well-being. The importance of taking action on Climate Change is being justified on the basis of the climate record as proof that humans have significantly contributed to unprecedented and adverse climate change. It should therefore be a top priority to address any possible doubts concerning the assumptions that are being made about climate change in Australia.

The much publicized BOM data record has to stand the test of independent scrutiny if accusations of ideological or political motivation are to be adequately addressed. If the BOM data record is accurate and any adjustments are scientifically justifiable, then the BOM should have no objections to being held to account to the standards they proclaim in their annual report. If there are any areas of doubt, then the policy-makers and public need to be made aware of those areas so that informed decisions can be made regarding how any doubt may influence policy decisions.

In light of the amount of money involved, the number of Australians affected and the imminent proposed changes to current legislation, we the undersigned hereby request immediate attention be given to the implementation of an independent audit of the BOM temperature records with specific but not exclusive reference to areas of concern raised in this letter.

The Auditor General has received the request

Thank you for your letter of 24 December 2010 which raised concerns about the integrity and accuracy of the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) Australian Temperature Records.

To assist with the consideration of the issues raised in your correspondence, further information has been requested from BoM. Your request for an audit will be considered as a part of the process of determining our future work program, and within the context of current resourcing and work priorities.

Thanks to Jaymez for reporting the bugs with the links in the signatories.

UPDATE #2:

People have been sending in some thoughtful letters. Here’s one from David Hagen that I was CC’d on who took a different approach.

TO: Ian McPhee, Auditor General

As an Australian citizen, scientist and engineer, I endorse the request: “Presenting a Formal Request to Audit BOM and CSIRO Climate Data and Advice” by Senator Cory Bernardi et al. May I recommend that your evaluation and audit be conducted in light of the guidance regarding uncertainty in measurement established by the International Standards Organization, of which Standards Australia is a member. See the following ISO and Standards Australia documents:

In particular, I recommend that you audit:
1) How the Type B (Bias) uncertainties have been evaluated in the reported temperature data and trends.

2) Whether Type B (Bias) uncertainties were introduced in the processing of the raw temperature data.

Type B (bias) uncertainties are often comparable to Type A uncertainties, but often they are neither evaluated nor separately reported. From the evidence I have seen, the Type B uncertainties have not been adequately evaluated. Furthermore, systemic Type B uncertainties appear to have been introduced into the Australian temperature data processing, giving a the appearance of markedly warming trend.

For example, see the analysis by Willis Eschenbach, “Darwin Zero Before and After” posted on December 20, 2009 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/darwin-zero-before-and-after/ Eschenbach shows warming adjustments by GHCN of 6 degrees/century to an otherwise declining temperature record at Darwin Zero.

144 comments to Announcing a formal request for the Auditor General to audit the Australian BOM

On pretty much every front, the climate ‘science’ has been showned to be bogus but that will not stop them saying it’s settled, therefore it’s now a political problem. Continuing to attack the science will get us nowhere.

Legal challenges to those producing politicized science will. Well done Jo and your colleagues. Way to go and I wish you luck.

Excellent Jo, you and your colleagues are indeed courageous and determined seekers of the truth. Give ‘em hell.

As Pointman stated above… It is and now not a “scientific” problem, it is a purely political and bureaucratic one…. I think scientists are withdrawing from the argument if they possible can now, because the Bureaucrats and politicians will be looking for scientific “necks” to hang this whole debacle on if they can…. Lets hope this is the beginning of the end of the flawed hypothesis of AGW and all it’s political hooks and claws.

This is certainly the way to go and all thinking people will appreciate the time and work involved putting together such a detailed submission. I congratulate all involved.

However, whilst it’s good that the AG has requested further information from BoM we know they’ll obfuscate and drag out the time they take to respond as much as they can. And remember the frustration of Harry, from the Harry.Read me files from Climategategate when he tried to untangle the mess of their records?

The rest of the AG’s reply gives me little confidence. “Your request for an audit will be considered as a part of the process of determining our future work program, and within the context of current resourcing and work priorities.”

Does that sound like the request will be treated with the urgency it requires and deserves, especially with the pressure Gillard and the Labor Party will bring to bear to try and stop it?

Because the MSM will completely ignore this, we must find ways of applying pressure to keep up the momentum your actions could and should generate. Another campaign targeting politicians like the one that stopped Malcolm Turnbull’s attempted sell-out to Rudd before Copenhagen may help, but it must be done or well under way before July 1.

The time is short but I’m confident it can be done. Good luck everyone!!

Absolutely fantastic. It is perfectly valid for we the people to have a robust, independant and transparent audit to be performed on any data an information sets being refered to by politicians for any purpose.

It is absolutely essential that that this be done for any data or information set being used by any politician to further their own agenda – in this case the agenda is to raise taxes.

When done Jo and the rest of the team. I would suggest you set sometime limits ( for yourselves) on the steps required and plan for alternative actions if the milestones are not met because as others above have said the “system” will try to drag this out as much as they can. For example ,I would expect the Audit Office to have their “work plan” for the year or at least the next six months organised by now so you should expect a more substantial reply from McPhee by say ,the end of Feb.

Jo, are there plans to get this story into the mainstream media? As others have suggested already, chances are they’ll drag their feet until it’s too late, so pressure needs to go on from the public to damand this audit take place.

Can they audit this stupid government as part of the deal? There’s not a single member of Joooolya’s circus of ineptitude who could count to twenty even with their shoes and socks off.
(On the subject of their shoes and socks – they probably put them on in that order, too.)

One aspect of the BOM figures that has concerned me is its rainfall records. In Australia, the CAGW scare has, until very recently, been focussed on the “models” showing declining rainfall in southern Australia, due to CAGW (we now seem to be being told that we will also get more rainfall due to CAGW).

In Feb 2010, there was a significant rainfall event where I live (NSW South Coast). The local AWS went on the blink early on the morning of 5 Feb. At the time that it went out, it had already recorded over 63mm of rain for the day. However, this rainfall is not shown in the online record at the BOM website. I have emailed BOM (twice) about this omission and they have acknowledged that the rainfall record is deficient. But they either have no mechanism to manually update for the omission, or have chosen not to do so.

I wonder whether this is a common error in the BOM rainfall figures?

It would seem to me that rainfall is at least as important as temperature in assessing whether/how CAGW/AGW/GW is affecting Australia.

Thanks so much for that link, Pointman. You’re right: very compelling presentations.

Worthy of note is that, towards the end of Part 1, Hertzberg salutes that most formidable and tireless sceptic, the late John Daly, by recalling his assessment:

What is disquieting about the `Hockey Stick’ is not Mann’s presentation of it originally. As with any paper, it would sink into oblivion if found to be flawed in any way. Rather it was the reaction of the greenhouse industry to it – the chorus of approval, the complete lack of critical evaluation of the theory, the blind acceptance of evidence which was so flimsy. The industry embraced the theory for one reason and one reason only – it told them exactly what they wanted to hear.

JN,
This is a very great work which has entailed very much effort by many people, it deserves to be answered.
The answer is going to show you just what your Office of Auditor General is made of. The answer is going to be either a swingeing condemnation of the BOM or it is going to be a cowardly subservience to the greeny Government line.
Let’s see what happens and take it from there!

What I meant Government in Australia is way to big and powerful to a point where individual freedoms have been eroded to point that such a request as this one will get nowhere. In many ways its a politically correct dictatorship. Sorry…

2. An invitation should be sent to our friends the Aussie Warmists such as Karole and Pittman to support this in a quest to improve the science and their response publicised. After all, they should be keen to publicise the rising temperature record and happy to prove our conspiracy theories wrong.

3. Would it help to invite academics and public to write to ANAO in support of this request?

Yes it was a great link and a timely reminder of the humble but great late John Daly who, although largely self-taught, was one of those genuine traditional scientists who carried much of the early fight against the corruption of science represented by those in the UNIPCC.

Nearly all, if not all his work is still relevant and his email exchange with Phil Jones, after pointing out a glaring but obvious mistake by CRU, is a classic and gave a real insight into the insular attitude of Jones and his fellow AGW proponents and their reaction to any constructive comments from anyone outside the UNIPCC cabal.

John’s work is still a valuable resource for anyone interested in searching out the truth for themselves and his list of ‘greenfields’ stations round the world as set out in “What’s wrong with the Surface Record” is a very good example. http://john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm

Quite right, Mike. McPhee was a contentious moderate (wet) Liberal Minister cast in the mould of Petro Georgiou with whom he energetically promoted multiculturalism especially. So it would not be surprising if his leaning was towards warmists like Hockey, Turnbull, Hunt and Fletcher in to-day’s Coalition.

Even so, it is reasonable to expect that he takes his role seriously to the extent that his deliberations will be honourable. More so, at least, than a Labor or Greens friendly stooge.

In fact, that possibility is not entirely out of the question in the short term and perhaps even before the admirable submission here runs its course. If this is any indication, former politicians will be banned from such positions, so paving the way for McPhee’s replacement. Enter ghastly Garnaut types to bring to that office the same kind of “independence” that Flannery now brings to the Climate Commission.

Good move Jo but I am surprised at the lack of reference to Warwick Hughes http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/ . He has a huge amount of temperature and other BOM data in his files as well as analyses in various articles and posts. Have a look at the archives going back to 2005 and the categories on the left side of the webpage but his data collection goes back much further. Look at the pictures of Stevenson screens more than 100 years ago. He has correspondence with Phil Jones mentioned in the Climate Gate emails. The late and great John Daly (infamously mentioned by Jones in the Climate Gate emails) also has data comparisons with BOM at http://www.john-daly.com/index.htm Have a look at his chart for Brisbane which shows a cooling trend from 1949 to 2001, or for the Jo the West Australia stations Klagoorlie, Albany and Geraldton which also show cooling trends from 1940

[Good point! We may well need to expand this, but at the moment the main aim is to stop people from putting it in the too hard basket and ignoring it. Cory Bernardi will be a help there. If people can write to local reps, the ANAO, and newspaper editors that will help too. -- JN]

Excellent work, thank you Jo. I made a similar call through individual politicians after the BoM appeared lost for words to comment on the New Zealand NIWA data. BTW, has anyone seen the full BoM report on NIWA?

There is a global program under way to revisit UHI and by its nature it will show the quality of available input data in Australia. However, it will be many months before all the relevant countries have been gathered in.

Thanks are due again to David Stockwell, Ken Stewart and Warwick Hughes as well as others who know who they are.

Sorry guys, this won’t happen.
Once Julia gets wind of this, you’ll find there will be a massive funding cut to the Australian National Audit Office because all the money has gone fixing up the flood damage in Queensland.

Really, do you think the guvmint will let this happen, after all, they have a pretty good track record at feeding mushrooms !

Damn good job I hope it flies. I have been recording the daily forecasts. I thought they were inaccurate but I did not realise far they are out and how seldom are they correct. For instance last Friday was forcast here at 6:00 to be 28 maximum. It reached a maximum of 22 at 15:30. Gross errors are the general rule from an organisation that is trying tell us what the future will be when 7 days or even tomorrow is a problem.

BTW I tried to get the Full PDF it seems there is a access rights issue.

Yeah yeah. Lets waste time and money on another wild goose chase. Maybe historical Australian temperatures will be shifted up by 0.01 degrees as a result. Same deal, we still have a problem. This is not the best use of resources, which is why it won’t get up.

I’m just wondering if the NAO (national audit office) approach is the way to go; I’ve been quickly scanning the Act and I can’t see that a performance audit by the NAO will achieve anything other than maybe a perusal of what BOM says about its adjustment methodology but that could have been ascertained through an FOI request, I’m probably mistaken as I would have thought the Senator would have some idea as to whether a request would be effective in the sense that it results in an outcome; I do say I know nothing much about the NAO and have never read the Act before so …. but it’s a very interesting development and whatever happens the work by Jo and the volunteers will not have been wasted because if no outcome is achieved or an unsatisfactory one then the type of action the NZCSC have taken against NIWA is still available

Amazing work all! This is an excellent first shot in a protracted campaign against the AusBOM. I recommend putting together a Summary For Policy Makers which would be of interest to three certain independents.

This is great news. I have had some minor successes in attempting to influence political opinion. Firstly, I would strongly suggest that an email copy (with a covering note) is sent individually (do not use cc) to each and every member of Federal parliament asap. Not only might it solicit support from AGW waverers but also none of them could say they did not know about it. Secondly, a copy (with an appropriate covering note) should be forwarded to relevant ministers and departmental heads, and immediate underlings, in the Dept of Climate Change, Dept of Environment, and relevant the Dept (of Science?) for the BOM. Thirdly, a copy and covering note should be forwarded to the head of the BOM, and immediate underlings including the relevant section that dealt with the temperate adjustments. Fourthly, a copy should be sent to each of the other relevant AGW players such as the Climate Institute, Andy Pitman’s office at UNSW, David Karoly’s office at Uni of Melb, CSIRO, etc – these copies should be forwarded to the head of the organisation as well as the relevant departmental head or head researcher. Fifthly, send a copy to mainstream media outlets including the chief editor as well as relevant science or environment editors/reporters. Sixthly, forward an email letting the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) know whom you have sent copies too. By doing this, the issue cannot be ignored and be so readily slipped under the carpet.

Very important: not only should every email be sent individually (no cc) but also every covering note should briefly mention what the submission is about but, most importantly, mention that each and every body or person mentioned above has received a copy. Though most receivers won’t bite it will be talked about at various levels and if some MPs start asking questions in parliament it is more likely to be reported in the media and it will add to the pressure for the ANAO to investigate. The bottom line here is that people will very likely do their utmost to protect their reputations and, given the number of people and organisations that have been notified (and that they know who else has been notified), it will be very hard for them to ignore your request. I wish you luck. Cheers.

Fourthly, a copy should be sent to each of the other relevant AGW players such as the Climate Institute, Andy Pitman’s office at UNSW, David Karoly’s office at Uni of Melb, CSIRO, etc – these copies should be forwarded to the head of the organisation as well as the relevant departmental head or head researcher

Quite so. Its very important that we keep harassing scientists so that they can’t get on with their real work.

You might be right that Gillard will find it hard to let this happen. But she will also have to be very careful ( politically) if they try to stop it , because of how such an action will be viewed. Even if they do stop the Audit Office , Jo and the team can then just twist it into a legal challenge , as was done in NZ.They have done most of the hard work
(putting together all the data). In effect the “ball is in the Govt’s court” . How independent is the Audit Office ??

I note that the Gillard government is getting a free ride from the lame stream media regarding the carbon tax she promised not to introduce. This tax is expected to rake in over 20 billion dollars per year. From the information presented in the audit request I would expect such an audit would seriously undermine the future of carbon taxation. With so many billions at stake for a useless government that has gotten so far into debt, I would expect extremely stiff resistance to this audit proposal. If BOM can be encouraged to adjust rainfall data to justify plans for putting a price on irrigation water it is likely that the Auditors office can be similarly pressured. The government has blown the surplus, stripped the future fund, the mining tax failed, the flood tax is floundering, The Enormous Tax Scam got rejected (calling it the Carbon Propaganda Recycling Scheme was no help), so they desperately need the carbon tax to cover their wasteful spending.

But it’s not just the 20 billion a year tax Labor need to defend, it’s their party’s reputation and that of their partners in crime, the Greens, for decades into the future. While I applaud this proposal for an audit, I would not be surprised to hear that the auditors office cannot act on it because they are in the middle of moving to a shiny new building with nicer furniture and more employees and that this move will not be completed until after the introduction of the carbon tax….

[...] are all the details at Jo’s blog – Announcing a formal request for the Auditor General to audit the Australian BOM. Google those email addresses of all your representatives, craft an email demanding urgent action [...]

I find it interesting when you look at places like Menindee, White Cliffs, Willcannia even Echuca that have long temperature records that the trend is flat.When you consider the remote location of some of these stations would they not be the ideal location for measuring the Earths temperature over the last 100 odd years.

[...] we can at least thank them for their efforts and wish them the best of luck – they'll need it. From Jo Nova's site: A team of skeptical scientists, citizens, and an Australian Senator have lodged a formal [...]

[...] But what's heating up ISN'T the temperature!!! Some smart folks have demanded an audit! Announcing a formal request for the Auditor General to audit the Australian BOM « JoNova Artificial temperatures will generate huge money for the [...]

John Brookes:
February 16th, 2011 at 11:37 am
“Quite so. Its very important that we keep harassing scientists so that they can’t get on with their real work.”

My oh my, you have got out of the wrong side of bed today John! Firstly, it would seem to me, that the audit is simply about taking the unadulterated record and checking it against what the BOM has done to those readings. Where would the “Harassed Scientist” come into the picture other than passing on the records.

Seems to me someone is running scared!

Whats your proposal? Australia spends Billions of $’s without an audit? Without critical proof of the rewards/outcome action would bring?

Time you moved into the real world where the grown ups play John, because accountability is what its all about and being able to kick someones butt when they get it wrong, not the free ride you seem to want for “Harassed Scientists! Trust me, the scientists in the real world of industry know what its all about!

Good work all. I see John Brookes is upset so the audit is obviously worthwhile. Ian McPhee maybe a lot of things but he has shown in the past to be independant and thorough. It was he afterall who did find serious waste in the BER and said so. He will be under pressure to ignore the request but that may indeed be the catalyst he needs.

This is an extremely important intiative for two reasons:
1. Exposure of the warmist bias
2. Political exposure of the ALP/Greens fear of accountability on their disasterous climate policies.
By the way a carbon dioxide tax is threatening not only to shareholders and consumers but most impotantly to employees. The Australian steel industry is about to become uncompetative in domestic and international markets entirely as result of this ALP/Green policy. It is estimated by warmist think tanks that the price of Australian steel will increase by at least $84 dollars a tonne as a consequence of an imposed carbon dioxide “price”or tax. This would literally sink the Australian industry. Take Bluescope’s Port Kembla steelworks for example. It emits about 11% of the total NSW carbon dioxide emission. It employees directly 3,000 employees with an indirect workforce of another 7,000 and a multiplier regional employment of 30,000. The ALP apparachiks in the Illawarra region are telling their supporters not to worry because the steel industry will receive compensatory off sets. So the scheme will tax the industry and then the Commonwealth will provide a compensatory subsidy to maintain its competativeness. This has to be the most lunatic public policy in history. And thats saying something. The Greens of course do not care if 30,000 jobs go to the wall. They are proposing a direct reduction steel plant to be built by whoever and we will all apparently move to the Pilbara. These clowns have to be stopped.

if we get the audit and the CAGW gravy train comes to an end, imagine what taxpayers would save!

15 Feb: Japan Times: Kyodo News: Trillions for biomass projects fruitless
None of the government’s 214 biomass promotion projects — with public funding coming to Yen6.55 trillion — over the past six years has produced effective results in the struggle against global warming, according to an official report released Tuesday…http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110215x2.html

I wholeheartedly support this initiative. If it does not jeopardize the application I think it is important to let the general public know via the media what is being challenged. It already has serious doubts about the claimed seriousness of “climate change” reinforced by the sort of weather occurring around the world that intuitively is difficult to reconcile with global warming. And of course climate gate.

In the end the government probably thinks it can ignore the skeptics but must know its tenure will be threatened by a public that thinks it is cooking the books or using dodgy data to impose a tax that the public, it increasingly appears, believes would have no effect on the climate which it thinks needs no fixing anyway.

I salute the attempt but as a cycnical government employee I doubt if it will get up. Australian governments and politicans are reknowned for their secrecy and aversion to FOI’s/audits.

I must admit John Brookes’ comment about letting the scientists get back to work made me laugh. That mob stopped being scientists and became advocates a long time ago. It would be refreshing to see them step off the political soapbox and actually do real science, but I am not holding my breath… and you know what that means… I shall continue to exhale plant food.

John@ 60: I hope you’re not one of those people who are only happy when they’re miserable. By the way, what did you think of the Edenhofer interview? You know, the one where the IPCC co-chair said “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore”.

Have you freed yourself from that illusion John?

You may like haunting this blog like the “ghost of misery” but you won’t get much more oxygen from anyone unless you have something intelligent to contribute!

The CO2 caused global warming case can only ever be considered as a theory, because if there were any unarguable facts in the case that have been put so far, it would no longer be a theory but a fact.

When data is falsified to try and make the theory look plausible the case is no longer valid and its perpetrators should be charged with fraud and perhaps even with terrorism under its current definition.

Its a really good summary that highlights the disparity between theoretical models and the real world observations.

The BOM certainly have a case to answer for, and reticence won’t present a complimentary image. I suggest they do not follow the path UKCRU took, and come clean by opening their doors to an independent review right from the outset.

I was beginning to look at this myself. I was wondering why the BoM Annual Mean Temperature Anomaly – Australia chart differs so much from the HADCRUT Southern Hemisphere Temp Anomaly. Australia represents a lot of the land in the southern hemisphere so a difference in trend of .03 c/decade looks like a lot to me – HADCRUT .07 c/dec, BoM .1 c/dec. I looked at the Bourke max temp record from BoM and although it’s only one station, it does have a long record. The average of the yearly averages from 1878 to 1995 is 27.7c, the 5 year average from 2006-10 is 27.8c, 1880-04 28.3c, 1900-04 29.0c, max 30.7c 1934. Feeling warm yet?

Well the AG better make sure anyone he corresponds with have never had any dealings with Climate Audit. Dr David Jones (see para 1 above), Head of Climate Monitoring and Prediction, National Climate Centre, Bureau of Meteorology has made it quite clear that he is well and truly above dealing with these sort of untermenschen.

2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said
they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA

Note to Senator Bernardi – Is it possible to ask a Senate question on this matter?

1. Does the BoM have a prescribed list of sceptical scientists whose requests they have decided to ignore?
2. If so could the Minister provide official BoM documentation as to how the decision to do this was arrived at and who made that decision?
3. If para 1 is not the case, can the Minister enquire if Dr Jones has the authority to make such unilateral decisions?
4. If Dr Jones does not have such authority, does the Minister agree that Dr Jones should be officially reprimanded?
5. If not, why not?

Dr David Jones went to ground after Climategate but has bobbed his head up again on occassion. Perhaps he thinks the dust has settled. But I haven’t forgotten that Climategate email by Dr Phil Jones (is it something about the Welsh that make them duplicitous?) and I will continue to make sure that others do not forget it either.

I understand the cynicism of those who think this audit request will be put in the too hard basket or obfuscated by the public servants and politicians. But we have a responsibility to push this matter as hard as possible.

The current Government’s proposed policy to combat ‘Global Warming’ will have a massive impact on Australia’s foreign and trade policy, employment, industry and the economy. The Government has based their policy largely on the temperature record as provided and amended by the BOM which they point to as ‘unprecedented’ proof of catastrophic global warming.

It is therefore already a travesty that the BOM temperature record is not officially audited by the Government. It is akin to the Tax Office never auditing taxation returns. How many errors and deliberate cheating would occur on tax returns if that were the case?

It is also vitally important to have the audit request on the public record so that in the future politicians cannot claim they were ignorant of the facts. They can be held to account. Jo Nova has done an excellent job in publicising this but as already suggested by others, we can all help in this process. Send letters and emails to politicians, the media, friends and relatives with the audit request attached. The more it is in the public domain, the harder it will be to ignore.

Jo perhaps you can publish the list of Federal Members and Senators email addresses again so that others can send letters urging the pollies to support the call for an audit?

cementafriend at 32 I too am surprised at Warwick Hughes research not being included as a supplementary source
but I don’t know if he was asked but I would certainly think at some stage that Warwick Hughes and the late John Daly should be included as ‘pioneers’ of the questioning of the official temperature records
after all each of them was and in the case of Warwick Hughes is a pioneer

Yeah, sure. Go ahead and do it. I think its a waste of time and money, but if it will make you guys feel like you’ve achieved something worthwhile, go ahead.

John, I’m one that has never minded you contributing here, your postings while not meeting with a lot of agreement, have in the past usually been courteous, but lately you seem to be eating a lot of sour grapes.

I congratulate Joanne Nova on her efforts to have the Australian surface temperature record audited. I just don’t believe that the National Audit Office has the appropriate skills to undertake such a task, itself.

But if the National Audit Office is genuinely interested in getting this task done in an appropriate manner, it would do the most logical and sensible thing…

1. Engage an eminent climate scientist like Dr Roy Spencer, who is not a ‘warmist alarmist’ to undertake the audit.
2. Engage Dr Phil Jones of the CRU, who is a ‘warmist alarmist’ to undertake the audit.

The National Audit Office would then have two independently compiled audit reports from a scientist from each side of the climate debate.

The two reports could then be compared and the National Audit Office would then be able to present its own report that would be independent, objective and based on two reports by opposing independent experts.

I hear you Jaymez… and I am also behind the concept 100%. There are a couple of major reasons why the Labor party will not allow it to happen:

1) They don’t want the truth to get out; and
2) they won’t want to wait a couple years (or however long it takes) until the result is known, because the opposition would (legitimately) use that as a reason to put any carbon (dioxide) price legislation on hold.

Obviously any delay to Labor’s big taxes (MRRT or “carbon”) is untenable because they won’t be able to fulfil their election promises nor get the budget back into surplus.

Mad Hatter@ 54. That’s brilliant! This should be required readng for anyone who feels they are powerless against politicians and/or their parties. I fully endorse your observation that “you will have a better understanding of maximising your effectiveness on this and other issues”.

To whet your appetites, this is a summary:-

It is your legal duty and obligation, and yours alone, to keep your Member and Senators fully informed, at all times, of your “WILL”. This is your true lawful relationship with your Members and your Senators.

Bulldust:
February 16th, 2011 at 6:36 pm
PS> Is there any merit in following up with a petition to get this done?

While I respect your posts, and credit you with the term “climategate”, I think you could spend some time at the keyboard and dash off some letters to your polititions.

I sent off 7 today and have already 4 positive replys. One bit I posted above.

Here is the guts of the text I sent off.

Dear ********,

I am not sure you are aware that a small group of people, including Senator Cory Bernardi, have made a formal request to the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) to have the BOM and CSIRO audited.

I have attached the full .pdf of the request and have included some portions of the text of that document below.

I would ask that, you take some time to read through the document as the accuracy of the BOM and CSIRO results should figure in the determination of weather the Australian public should support a carbon tax.

We, the public, should be told exactly what is going on so we can make some informed decisions and this principal should apply to our representatives in the Parliament. This cannot be done as long as the BOM and the CSIRO hides its measurements, and methods behind a veil of secrecy.

Below is a small excerpt from the pdf.

The following is a request and justification for the independent audit of the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) climate record data, particularly the data and algorithms that contribute to the formal assessments of Australian climate change provided by BOM and CSIRO to the Australian government.

BOM Data is vitally important to the nation

The CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) are publicly funded institutions. The Government relies on advice from these organisations. Decisions based on BOM data and CSIRO may increase taxes and will direct the allocation of billions of dollars in the Government and private sectors.

There are currently no independent audits of climate data

Despite their importance, there are no truly independent audits of the quality and accuracy of some of that data and information provided to the Government and to the public from these organisations. Audits are a safeguard to ensure there is no possibility of politically or ideologically motivated manipulation of records and advice.

Unexplained adjustments and errors have been discovered

Preliminary surveys of the BOM temperature record by independent analysts including engineers and scientists have found large, unexplained, non-random changes to original temperature data and in some cases clear errors. Officials inside the BOM have not to date provided adequate justification or a detailed record of the discrepancies identified.

Artificial adjustments exaggerate the warming

A BOM spokesman has claimed that the adjustments make little difference to the overall trend reported for Australia and are simply made to improve data quality. Yet independent checks suggest that the adjustments may account for as much as a third of the reported warming trend in Australia.

I do look forward to a reply from you as to weather or not you would support Senator Cory Bernardi in this request to have this performed by the Australian National Audit Office.

[...] are all the details at Jo’s blog – Announcing a formal request for the Auditor General to audit the Australian BOM. Google those email addresses of all your representatives, craft an email demanding urgent action [...]

Jo has made “IceCap” in the Blogosphere column. What’s New and Cool column covers “Is 2010 the hottest ever”, while The Political Climate column has “Cap and Trade fantasies in Disneyland”.
Both well worth a read. Click the IceCap link on Jo’s side panel.

For those sick of the MSM, IceCap is a great way to keep abreast of happenings our MSM would never cover.

On further reflexion from a strategic point of view, I am concerned that we don’t win the science battle and loose the publicity war.

I believe we must set public expectations of this audit very very carefully and forcefully to gain any benefit.

Firstly, what is the *claimed* accuracy of this figure of 0.85C by BOM – is there one (please excuse my ignorance here)? If they say it’s ±0.25 then they have an easy out.

Even if we can get them to say ±0.05 and lets say we force an audit and prove we are 100% correct – we show the BOM consistently exaggerated the record and Australian temperatures rose only 0.6°C, not 0.85°C over 100 years.

What will be the headline? – I suggest it will be Gillard shouting from the rooftops that they won. I can already hear her spin:

Labor bent over backwards for the loony deniers, wasted millions on an audit and this new pristine record, now approved by everyone, shows essentially the same result – Australia did indeed warm by a large amount of 0.6°C. Arguing about 0.6 or 0.85 is just cherry picking – as usual by the sceptics. Their scurrilous allegations of a somehow falsified temperature record is untrue. This proves BOM and Karole & Co were right all along, dangerous global warming with 10m sea level rises has withstood sceptics’ best shot and is proved true and the sceptics’ loony conspiracy theories about the BOM are utterly wrong – any more nonsense from them and we will prosecute them.

And this may be the best scenario!

IMHO, it is critical to manage the expectation from this venture and define exactly what we are alleging, what constitutes a win, what is the significance of the win scientifically and most importantly the significance to the public.

We will struggle to excite the public with a difference of 0.25C. And how would this affect the great consensus on AGW anyway – it’s not at all clear how it could.

If we prove BOM’s integrity is lacking – they can say it was one guy making mistakes – he has long gone and all is good now – frankly who will care.

Regardless of outcome, Gillard will say (rightly) Carbon tax is not reliant of Australian temperature history – even if it cooled for a 100 years in Australia – it won’t change the global warming record significantly and the mountain of evidence for cAGW.

So what to do? I suggest:

1. We must define and publicise the accuracy claimed by BOM and make them swear by it – this alone may make them retreat.

2. We must define what degree of error would be unacceptable and what would constitute a willful forgery of public record, perhaps worthy of disciplinary action.

3. We must stress that this does not prove or disprove cAGW.

4. We should describe this as a part of a world wide effort to audit temperature records to remove detected observer biases, unmitigated UHI and sometimes nefarious manipulations. This will help determine how much the cAGW has been exaggerated and how much, if at all, significantly man’s CO2 affects global temperature.

I agree with the views you express (however, I would like to hear someone from the BOM explain Darwin).

The issue is: does a shift from say .02% to .03% – .04% of CO2 in the atmosphere have a substantial impact on the climate? Is there evidence of significant impact?

Should we (for example) be more concerned about the health impacts of highly reactive gases like SO2 and NOx ? What about industrial soot in the air we breathe?

The core question remains: can you show me the evidence of CO2 impact on temperature? This request for audit of temperature records addresses a part of the issue, has someone been fudging the data to get the answer they want?

The corruption can no longer be covered up and sanitized. It has developed an obvious stink, as anyone with a working brain can deduce. It urgently needs cleaning out and made public by a full-scale PR campaign in the MSM. I hope people of science can accept that widespread PR is imperative and thus work with appropriate people to present this huge news story to the public.

Sorry about my last somewhat rambling post. But I now always think of the worst most illogical and opportunistic spin when anticipating warmists’ or this government’s responses to us only to find they are often worse. Sigh.

Yes I suppose a headline “BOM caught altering records” would certainly have big impact on the perception of honesty of the whole AGW circus, much like Glaciergate damaged IPCC honesty way above its scientific damage.

The job will be to define and explain to MSM what constitutes significant inappropriate ‘altering’ of data in the face of counter-arguments from the ‘experts’.

Michael, it wasn’t rambling at all, it was exactly what we would expect from the political spin machine.

This is not about “the exact trend in degrees C” — it’s about honesty and competence.

And don’t forget that what really matters here is whether the models are right, and if it was warmer in the 1940′s that they report, the data alterations are misleading. The trend could remain the same, but if the ups and downs don’t match CO2 emissions or the model hindcasts, that’s another X for the GCMs.

Someone earlier asked what has happened with the New Zealand Temperature Record review. The latest on that saga can be obtained from the NZ Climate Science Coalition website (see Jo’s LINKS) or at http://www.climatescience.org.nz/

At some alarmist blogs commentators have interpreted the Australian BOM’s recent review of the revised NIWA Seven Station Series temperature record as a giving NIWA a clean bill of health and leaving egg on the face of the NZCSC which launched the original legal action against NIWA. However nothing could be further from the truth.

As many readers would know, it was in reaction to that legal action that NIWA admitted in their statement of defence that they were not providing an ‘official‘ New Zealand temperature record which could be relied upon by the Government and the public. It was NIWA that removed their previous Seven Station Series temperature record from use and introduced a revised Seven Station Series(7SS).

In a December press release John Morgan, general manager of NIWA claimed “that the scientists from the Bureau’s National Climate Centre concluded that the results and underlying methodology used by NIWA were sound.” He was referring to the review of the revised 7SS temperature record. However the BOM review does not support that view.

The BOM report actually stated: “The review does not constitute a reanalysis of the New Zealand ‘seven station’ temperature record. Such a reanalysis would be required to independently determine the sensitivity of, for example, New Zealand temperature trends to the choice of the underlying network, or the analysis methodology. Such a task would require full access to the raw and modified temperature data and metadata, and would be a major scientific undertaking. As such, the review will constrain itself to comment on the appropriateness of the methods used to undertake the ‘seven station’ temperature analysis, in accordance with the level of the information supplied.”

In fact NIWA would not have been able to supply the BOM with the necessary data to enable them to accurately check the quality of the 7SS temperature record. When NIWA were asked in December 2009, for the schedule of adjustments made to the temperature record, specifically seeking copies of “the original worksheets and/or computer records used for the calculations”. NIWA responded on 29 January 2010, that they no longer held any internal records, and merely referred to the scientific literature.

NIWA’s admission that it had lost the original raw data was a convenient let-out and a failure to maintain proper records. It also made it impossible for the Australian BOM or any other body to validate NIWA’s claimed temperature record.

The BOM review also lacked rigorous statistical analysis of the application of the 7SS as an appropriate national average temperature record. BOM’s reviewers also did not include someone appropriately qualified in statistical analysis. This should be vital given that this latest 7SS, like its predecessor, now removed from the NIWA website, is more of a statistical challenge. It requires balancing a range of temperatures from seven widely geographically separated weather stations across the country. Then you must try to arrive at an accurate and meaningful national average temperature from just those seven widely dispersed stations. Many statistical specialists would say a useful average from such data is not possible.

The alleged warming in NZ as reported by NIWA was one of the factors used to justify introducing the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in NZ. It is therefore vital that any rising temperature claims by NIWA should be able to withstand a high level of rigorous scrutiny. The Australian BOM has said that is not possible given the lack of records.

Given the constraints placed on the BOM review, the review letter from BOM merely states that assuming what NIWA supplied is accurate, then their results are reasonable. That hardly leaves the NZCSC with egg on their face. On the contrary, it should motivate all New Zealanders to also seek a proper audit of the NIWA temperature record rather than the soft review carried out by BOM.

John from CA – Japan et al refused to ratify Kyoto II, but Japan and lots of countries will owe big dollars come 2012 for Kyoto I. The numbers keep changing, because the value of CO2 credits keeps falling. The debts are in the millions and in some cases billions. Whether or not K I will be enforced remains to be seen. The US isn’t going to come hounding people to pay an agreement it didn’t sign. The UN would like too — of course. Who knows.

“We will struggle to excite the public with a difference of 0.25C. And how would this affect the great consensus on AGW anyway – it’s not at all clear how it could”.

Michael, check the “is 2010 the hottest ever” article at IceCap.

NASA’s GISS Jim Hansen made the claim that 2010 was the hottest ever – by 0.01degrees!!

Look at the headlines that got and the way it has been used and repeated by alarmists, the MSM and governments as “proof” of AGW ! Our once respected CSIRO, in it’s new role as an arm of the govenment’s propaganda machine, also joined the chorus!

Did any of them bother to check that data from other sources did not support Hansen’s claim?
Not on your Nellie !!

Hadcrut, the other main source of surface temperature information showed 1998 to have been hotter and that 2010 was nothing out of the ordinary.

I share your frustration at the endless media and government spin, but I think you can forget thoughts that “our job will be to define and explain to MSM what constitutes significant inappropriate ‘altering’ of data in the face of counter-arguments from the ‘experts’”.
The MSM is a “write-off” as far as any objective or unbiased reporting is concerned.

The only thing that politicians fear and reac to is loss of votes, we have to inform and mobilise the silent majority as it appears from this blog and others, many are already doing.

We were instrumental in saving Australia from this destructive ETS/Carbon Tax path before Copenhagen – it can be done again!

I’ve found that lettter – it’s at page 15 of http://www.niwa.co.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/108934/Report-on-the-Review-of-NIWAas-Seven-Station-Temperature-Series_v3.pdf
here’s a copy but is that a ‘review’?
Dr David Wratt
Chief Scientist Climate
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd
Wellington,
New Zealand
Peer Review of the NIWA “Seven-station” series: Temperature Data for Auckland,
Wellington, Dunedin, Nelson, Masterton and Lincoln (“Christchurch”)
Dear David,
This Bureau of Meteorology peer review of the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric
Research Ltd (NIWA) “seven station” series is a scientific review of the station reports for the
Auckland, Wellington, Dunedin, Nelson, Lincoln (‘Christchurch’) and Masterton sites as
provided by NIWA to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. In this context ‘scientific
review’ means a critical inspection/examination of the station reports taking into account the
range of supporting evidence provided. The ideas, methods and conclusions of the papers are
assessed for scientific error, internal consistency, clarity and scientific logic.
The data and methodology provided in the reports from NIWA are taken as an accurate
representation of the actual analyses undertaken. We are not in a position to question all of the
underlying analyses and data that have contributed to the final results, such as methods used
to compile raw data taken at stations. We do, however, perform some independent analyses as
appropriate to the aims of the review as outlined above.
The review does not constitute a reanalysis of the New Zealand ‘seven station’ temperature
record. Such a reanalysis would be required to independently determine the sensitivity of, for
example, New Zealand temperature trends to the choice of the underlying network, or the
analysis methodology. Such a task would require full access to the raw and modified
temperature data and metadata, and would be a major scientific undertaking. As such, the
review will constrain itself to comment on the appropriateness of the methods used to
undertake the ‘seven station’ temperature analysis, in accordance with the level of the
information supplied.
In general, the evidence provided by NIWA supports the homogeneity corrections that have
been applied to the temperature record to create the ‘seven station’ series. The scientific
papers clearly report on major issues which have been identified in the metadata and past
scientific literature. It is also clear that a number of significant adjustments (as identified by
NIWA in the reports) are clearly required for the raw/composite station series owing to
inhomogeneities which would otherwise artificially bias results.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Plummer
Acting Assistant Director (Climate Information Services)
14/12/2010

Thank you Jo for your part in calling for the audit and publicising the issues around the temperature records.

A related issue is the phenomenon of deriving temperture trend lines from arbitrary time periods of data. If regional or global climate varies over time in an oscillatory or even random fashion (say, linked to ocean current circulation) and you begin your trend line in a slightly cooler period and end it in a warmer one, then an apparent trend will appear.

What does BoM and the CSIRO do to acknowledge that 100 years is an arbitrary time period for temperature analysis, and that start and end dates might influence the magnitude of any trend?

Val@102, I went to that link which I understand is the result of a NIWA reanalysis of a sample 7 station temperature history which had a temperature trend before the reanalysis of 0.91C and a trend after the reanalysis of….0.91C.

It amazes me that anyone should accept at face value anything a climate scientist has to say. Taxpayers have given these charlatans billions upon billions of dollars. If I manufactured a part for the military they would want certifications and they would routinely audit me to make sure that the entire process had integrity. Yet, the climate scientists are loath to surrender their raw data to see if their work can be falsified as is proper. The CRU has “lost” its raw data, Mikey Mann has been dodging FOIA requests and Jim Hansen can’t ever seem to get it right because he keeps adjusting his data. Perhaps I could be a little more trusting if there was transparency in the process and integrity in the data, but there isn’t.

Once Mann’s hockey toothpicks were demolished by M&M and the Wegman report audits should have commenced across the globe, but they didn’t. Briffa’s Yamal scandal should have sounded the alarm but the sirens never wailed. Finally, when Mann published his work on hurricane frequency and intensity, using the same means and methods as he used for his Hokey Schtick, and it was contradicted by empirical data, you would think that the scientific community would have been outraged but they elected to play it safe and not risk losing their grant money.

I believe that this audit, if it is not just another whitewash, may very well set in motion a domino effect which will hasten the demise of the greatest scientific fraud ever foisted upon the human race. Then again, I am an optimist!

That’s a great point. An excellent example of this which could be included in any submission regarding the AGW case is Valentia Observatory, Ireland, an ideally situated ‘greenfields’ site to monitor climate change.

Google: Whats Wrong With the Surface Record which takes you to John Daly’s website and the article he wrote on 10th May 2000. Note his graph (near the end)showing the opening temperature in 1869 was 11.3C.

Now Google Surface temperature analysis which takes you to NASA GISS (Gistemp) site, click Station Data and input Valentia. Note NASA’s graph starts from 1880 but with an opening temp of 10.3C. Compare the two graphs and see what a difference in perception the start date makes to a person seeking to push the ACW theory to fellow environmental activists and a gullible public.

Hansen still misses out in this instance though, because the temp recorded in his “hottest year ever” claim is still only 10.3C, the same as his 1880 start point and a full 1.0C under the real start, 1869!

The NASA graph also shows that over the 140 years of continuous operation, the 1869 temp was only exceeded or equalled about 10 times ! It also shows only a variation of 2.0C over the full period.

I believe NASA’s excuse for not taking temps before 1880 into account was that there was insufficient data to be worthwhile, but you can almost bet your bottom dollar that like Valentia, warmer starts would have had to be taken in.

In AU who is going to be our political salvation?
Can someone produce a list of federal politicians who are sceptics?

I have written to and emailed my elected representatives regading Jo’s Audit request (beseeching them to bring it to the attention of the parliament), I do not expect a response. Whenever I lobby them on AGW their standard response is no response.

Val at 102 – thank you for the NZ material. I had had a faint hope that there might have been some further science done by the BoM, but obviously they were constrained by the material supplied to them. In a way it was a poisoned chalice for the BoM. I had read the earlier material this way.

Meg at 103 – it’s not only the choice of starting date, it’s also the method of assigning events to starting dates. For example, despite some documented cases of the date of introduction of Stevenson Screens on Australia, the BoM at times has placed a “don’t use” sign on data before about 1910, on the assumption that this will remove the problem of screen timing from the record. Unfortunately, it throws babies out with bathwater. A related matter is the choice of reference period for the “anomaly” method.

This is not my blog, it’s Jo’s, so I should not be giving advice, but if Jo permits, could I suggest that the audit proposal be made as free from emotion as possible, including politics, allegations, etc. In essence an auditor does an unemotional counting job first; fringe matters should not divert the auditor. The place to raise them is after the auditor’s report, if the auditor does find and report evidence of matters that need further investigation.

Finally, if you need a graphic to show people, here is Darwin again. I plotted this about 2 years ago and some data might have changed a little since, but very little. The graph is made by taking data strings from public web sites and recorded sources worldwide, then comparing them (by subtraction) to the list of online temperatures given by BoM on their web site. Given the fuss that is being made of an estimated change in Australia of 0.6 degrees C per century, a station like Darwin that shows spreads of 6 degrees C in a selected few months is hardly suitable to be part of the calculation, no matter who performs it. Important note: where there was occasional missing data, I infilled it by arbitrary near-neighbour methods (guesswork). I am obliged to acknowledge the BoM as a source of some of the data for scientific research purposes.

Maybe someone else can find this for others on here. I have searched and searched on the ABC website but can’t find any trace of what I viewed yesterday. It was the National (bank) Press Club at 12.30PM-1.30PM. I missed the first 15 minutes. A young speaker from USA with super white, large teeth (like all Americans) was going on about how badly the climate scientists were being treated by the media and the web. I think he was an editor of a science journal. But he talked more like an evangelist from the deep south. He said too many bloggers had a following which criticised climate change. He didn’t name this website but you could tell he meant sites like this. He also said that those against the idea of AGW were indeed denialists like those who oppose vaccinations. He also said sceptics had no right to their views against all the evidence. Yet on reporter asked him a question from left field. He was asked how he felt about importing beef from USA that could have mad cow disease. He looked non plussed and admitted he knew absolutely nothing about the subject. Pretty poor knowledge for a science editor. Anyway, sorry I can’t steer you to a transcript, etc.

Just a follow up. Yesterday there was a paper published in “Nature”. It was one by two scientists in Canada. They studied the rainfall in the NH for the past 60 years or so using 6000 places and came up with the staggering figure that rainfall had increased by 7%. But, on the National Press Club address the AGW speaker said nobody should ever take notice of a single only paper even if it is published in a journal.

I’d like to know why the minimum temperatures for Mount Gambier Post Office are missing for 1908-39. It’s only minimum missing – the maximum is available. Somehow the BOM still produces a HQ dataset for Mount Gambier Aero from 1910 onwards even though the aerodrome site started in 1942 and they have missing minimum temperature data from the PO (10 km south) before 1939.

A bit off topic but perhaps a lesson in how not to encourage idiots. Somehow I got directed to “watching the deniers”. After reading a few sentences I could see why the CAGW scientifically illiterate cabal is losing it with the general public and dragging their authority figure scientists down with them.

There is about the most inane piece of garbage on how to spot a denier I’ve come across, on any topic, from any of the alarmists. It’s the sort of rubbish that could be responded to without getting one’s brain out of first gear. Tempting as it was to carve them up I decided not to. Why give air to quasi-religious nutters who have a fundamentalist like faith in one of the “sects” of climate science? I’ve decided to help starve sites like this by not participating.

(It is a totally different situation when sound science, whether one agrees with the conclusions drawn or not, is invoked. That does require a response if one is equipped to argue on technical or scientific grounds).

Time for a reminder from Climategate’s HarryRead Me File. Harry was trying to fix up CRU’s mess.

“Getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren’t documented. Every time a cloud forms I’m presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too.

I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight.”

Correct. At the time, I downloaded public data strings for Darwin and then subtracted, month by month, the BOM online temperatures for Tmax and T min, which were added and halved for a mean. The graph therefore shows excursions from what could have been the best data then available.

A source close to BOM has confirmed what I have suspected, that some BOM records are changed frequently as meta data sheets are revisted. Therefore, a repeat of this graph using the figures of today might be slightly different. Also, some of the overseas adjusters appear to use algorithms that induce near-continuing change. Also, I have done a small amount of guesswork infilling of missing data, thus affecting reproducibility (but I suspect, by very little).

An immediate problem can be seen for a researcher who, not knowing the history of this graph, chose one of the data strings for calibration of a proxy to instrumental. The calibration might be badly in error.

Between 1973 and 1993 I used to fly almost monthly to Darwin. Our office was on the Stuart Highway, over the road from the East station shown on the following map of a station shift of 800m within the airport. A pilot friend has confirmed with airport staff that there have been several BOM airport location changes over the years since WWII.http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii14/sherro_2008/DarwinAirportpost2006a.jpg
From the office, we used to see liftoff to the East of B52s and KC135 tankers. I do not have figures about any jet wash effects.
For Westerly takeoffs, aircraft would run up engines for a couple of minutes on the taxi way that points to the eastern BOM instruments in the photo, some 300-400 m behind them. They still do, so far as I know. I have no figures for this effect either, if any.

My work agrees generally with Ken Stewart’s, though we might be using different meanings for “raw” as in “raw data”.

A person close to the BOM notes what I have noted, that the online record changes often, as old meta data sheets are retrieved and revisited. For overseas adjusters, it appears that some algorithms automatically induce frequent change.

Cohenite at 121. Ta. I’ll wait a while to decide whether to contact the AGO. It might not be appropriate to send material there. I’m anxious to keep an appearance of lobbying out of the formalities. The logic is strong enough to give this legs. If the BoM has nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear; indeed, they might benefit from an endorsement if it is earned.

With a science and finance background I am constantly astounded by the sloppiness of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global WarmingCooling industry(CAGWC). In the real world where bridges are built, air planes designed and bank ledgers balanced what passes for work by “Climate Science” would be milking a two week severance check holding a tin cup by Tuesday.

The Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global WarmingCooling industry cannot stand up to audit. JoAnne, this request for BoM audit is very good news especially being that NIWA was banking on BoM doing a BoM “buddy review” and rubber stamping of yet to be released versions of SS7 & SS11.

John from CA – Japan et al refused to ratify Kyoto II, but Japan and lots of countries will owe big dollars come 2012 for Kyoto I. The numbers keep changing, because the value of CO2 credits keeps falling. The debts are in the millions and in some cases billions. Whether or not K I will be enforced remains to be seen. The US isn’t going to come hounding people to pay an agreement it didn’t sign. The UN would like too — of course. Who knows.

=====
Thanks,
I didn’t realize Kyoto I was a binding agreement. What a waste of money that should be put to a better purpose.

BOM records are changed frequently as meta data sheets are revisted….UHI is a player.

Even so, despite its claims, BoM seems to make no meaningful attempt to eradicate UHI contamination as Andrew Barnham has shown (Appendix IV).

In February 2010, I analysed all 51 of Bom’s Long Record Temperature Stations (LRTS) with the aim of demonstrating a UHI signal, if any, in their official temperature reports. (LRTS have records covering all, or very nearly all, of 1910-2009.) Following is a summary of the results.

There are 3 values in each row. The first 2 are the mean temperature anomalies (degC) for 1910-1959 and 1960-2009 respectively. The third value is the difference (warming).

Clearly, national warming as reported by BoM (0.5 degC) is closer to a known heat island, Melbourne, and more than twice that of the national long-standing records.

BoM’s Reference Climate Station Network, on which its reports are based, overlaps but does not coincide with the LRTS. Even so, the foregoing analysis adds to the disquiet expressed by others at length and referred to in the audit submission.

Geoff, in view of your observation that BoM records are changed frequently, I intend to revisit my analysis to check that out!

elsie -
but that didn’t stop SBS 6.30 news last nite having a lengthy piece on the rainfall “study”, with Myles Allen, Bob Watson and Richard Jennings. u know how it goes, we can’t say AGW causes the floods, but we can say it nonetheless.

the video has already moved down the page and is now down the left side under the flood links, look for:

What a waste of time. No-one will listen. The aged pension has been with us for about a century. CSIRO dates from 1926. The ABC, complicit in government’s lying propaganda, was founded in 1929. Apparently little if anything dating from after the First World War has continuing merit, certainly few if any universities. Abolition is the only reasonable response. If another institution has conceivable merit let it be founded privately. Otherwise forget it. Science is dead; does it really matter? Just stop the theft of the public purse.

Science is not dead. It continues to flourish, working often on difficult, complex problems. Global freedom from starvation and smallpox are but two examples of success. There are very exciting advances in microbiology, drug design, causes of illness – that general field. For the more theoretical, the advances brought by recent satellites, like high resolution images from Hubble, are not just scientific achievement; they are beautiful art from real life. The science of materials has added orders of magnitude to computer and signalling performance. It is unfair to single out these examples, because there is a risk of leaving out even better ones.

You simply have to take a Monty Python refresher “Always look on the bright side”. Life is full of wonder, full of challenge. There have always been dissenting groups in society. Sometimes, unknown to them, they provide a benefit by clarifying what is good and what is bad, showing how low parts of society can sink.

But please, do not confuse the low life, the whingers (Ayn Rand called them “looters”) with the genuine sceptics. Scepticism is to science what philanthropy is to society. It has altruism, it is larger than most people imagine and it is performed by people with special properties.

Well said, Geoff. You refer in part to the medical field, beholden as it is to scientific rigor, in developed countries at least. Mercifully, the days are long gone when medicine was in thrall to the same kind of religious pseudoscientific deception that now infests climate alarmism.

BTW, I suspect that you are a fan of Monty Python and the genius of Eric Idle in particular. Me too. Big time!

“This is not my blog, it’s Jo’s, so I should not be giving advice, but if Jo permits, could I suggest that the audit proposal be made as free from emotion as possible, including politics, allegations, etc. In essence an auditor does an unemotional counting job first; fringe matters should not divert the auditor. The place to raise them is after the auditor’s report, if the auditor does find and report evidence of matters that need further investigation.”

Someone needs to pass that message on to ClimateAudit. They fail that test on every post they make.

With respect, I think that you should recognise on CA that Steve IS the auditor. To allow understanding, he outlines the pros and cons with a backstory. He attributes sources. He comes from a family with a legal background and in the years I have known him he has invariably acted properly.

I think you are getting confused by what is said by bloggers on CA after the story has broken. Bloggers are uncontrollable except via the snip, which Steve very rarely applies. The views of bloggers seldom match those of Steve himself, as been evident from a few phone and email contacts with him.

Have a try at shooting the messenger here. Tell me a couple of examples where you think Steve was out of line and (rather presumptively), I’ll attempt to answer them. I’m happy to put in the effort because the device called the blog has suddenly become rather important in good science; and blogs like Jo’s here and Steve’s CA need constructive, rather than destructive criticism.

Thanks to Ken Stewart, in a letter from the Director of Meteorology of BOM, Greg Ayres:

“Monitoring Australia’s climate is a high priority for the Bureau of Meteorology and we have developed a reference network of stations that have little or no urban influence to their climate records. The data from this network are available free of charge at http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/. The data which underpin this network are being continuously improved and added to through the digitisation of historic paper-based records and the collection of new observations. We also committed to improving our data analysis methods and therefore continually review these (see later) and adjust them where appropriate.”

“Monitoring Australia’s climate is a high priority for the Bureau of Meteorology and we have developed a reference network of stations that have little or no urban influence to their climate records.”

Little or no? That means he’s admitting to some SOME pollution of the data through the heat island effect. So we have a one-dataset-fallacy going on here. He could have more than one data-set and he could compile a trend graph on the basis of a few datasets. We could then get to look at a truncated dataset where ONLY stations where he is totally confident that no urbanisation effect is present are included. We could compare this purist and truncated dataset to others formulated on other grounds and assumptions.

This is like the economists when it comes to using metrics. They will refuse to use Gross Domestic Revenue over Gross Domestic Product for one excuse or another …… when they could use both. And they’ll pack their productivity metric with all sorts of gear until it becomes meaningless …. when they could use a half dozen ratios like the investment analysts used to.

Its pretty easy to use a throwaway line like “little or no urban influence” but a bit of thought tells us that he’s knowingly using dirty data and spinning it after the fact. Its better to have an honest and truncated dataset than a polluted and more comprehensive one. But possible argument or excuse can there be when you can have both?

There are several projects in progress to look at UHI in Australia. They vary in approach, which is healthy. I would not be surprised to find that the effect is not so large in Australia, because of our paucity of large cities. The subject is quite complex. For example, I do not know if many people fully understand the infra red radiative physics of tall buildings at night, when they have been heated by sunshine and even air conditioning in uncertain and unrecorded ways in the day. I do not understand it well.

I take your point about the use of econometrics and express thanks to people like Sinclair Davidson and the late Ian Castles who do/did appreciate the reality.

There is general acceptance that UHI is real. Experts differ in the amount. Much the same comment as applied to global warming. Much the same arguments will follow new findings. Unfortunately.

But you don’t want to soft-pedal these mongrels Geoff. They’ve contributed to the Soviet Style propaganda without having an honest data-set. We ought not be waiting on this stuff. They ought to have a truncated data-set sorted with an attendant graph already. Its less acceptable for scientists to be going along with a racket than it would be to be distorting matters all alone.

I’m not soft-pedalling, but often it can be counter-productive to be too full on. Years ago I attended courses on dispute resolution by Sir Zelman Cowen and Bill Kelty. That was one of the messages. The old slogan, you catch more ants with honey than with arsenic.

There’s a place for that one supposes. But you are going to kill more ants by feeding their nest with diesel and fire than by feeding them honey.

You can play it that way and thats a good thing. But ultimately this fraud isn’t over until we start moving a lot of the offenders from off the public tit. So you ought not expect everyone to follow the one strategy.

[...] errors, omissions and inexplicable adjustments. The team and Senator Cory Bernardi put in a Parliamentary request to get our Australian National Audit Office to reassess the BOM records. In response, the BOM, clearly afraid of getting audited, and still not [...]